Now that we have viable VoIP options...would love to be able to use a headset with a microphone to be able to converse while playing. I envision at least four "channels"...
Broadcast - send to all players
Team - Send to team members only
Individual - Send to a specific player
Off - Radio off
I would expect my tank to be locked to a given channel so that I could use it while my hands were busy playing, and then have a hot key to temporarily switch to another channel. For example, have the team channel locked on, and have a hotkey to switch to broadcast while it was being held down. Each channel would have its own hotkey (or possibly a hotkey that rotated through all channels one at a time?).
As to sending to an individual, selecting the individual to send to should probably use the same method now as the text messaging does (period then arrow key to their name). Locking the headset to an individual player would function the same as the other two channels, i.e. you would send only to that player regardless of the period/arrow key selection, and the individual player hotkey would still temporarily send to the last player selected by the period/arrow key. Of course, you would always be able to select a new name using the arrow keys before temporarily sending to a different individual player.
I would also think that a text notice should be sent to me if my radio is off and someone is trying to contact me by individual or team channel, and other players should be notified if my radio is off and they are trying to contact me by individual or team channel.
Lastly, receiving multiple signals might have to be queued (I don't know, I'm not a programmer), or they might be able to be mixed together in real time.
Question: Would too much "chatter" overwhelm the system if there was something like this implimented?
Hope you get my drift...
Need to integrate headset "radio" functionality
Which 3rd party apps?
Which ones?JeffM2501 wrote:there are 3rd party apps that do this now.
(and another excuse is it would screw BZAdmin 
)scorch... what the hell are you talking about?
If anything was put in game for it ( Open Combat IS planing to do this in game );
it's just data.
it would not be requred, it would be optionaly ( dialup users could not handle it ).
it would are no more of a "security issues" then it is for the other data your client requets.
the data woudn't even be sent to bzadmin. so I don't see how you can say "it would screw it up"
Dude think before you type, and when you type, read what you type to make sure it makes sense.
You don't know a thing about development or programing, so please do us a favor and don't make comments like this that are based on wild assumptions.
Ideas are allways good, but please please please think them out. If your not sure, ASK. You just make yourself look worse when you do stuff like this.
The primary problems with doing this in game is 1 ) making the data be compressed, and 2) geting a good way to record sound data on any platform.
Right now 3rd party apps are probably best because they can be optimised for each client's OS.
If anything was put in game for it ( Open Combat IS planing to do this in game );
it's just data.
it would not be requred, it would be optionaly ( dialup users could not handle it ).
it would are no more of a "security issues" then it is for the other data your client requets.
the data woudn't even be sent to bzadmin. so I don't see how you can say "it would screw it up"
Dude think before you type, and when you type, read what you type to make sure it makes sense.
You don't know a thing about development or programing, so please do us a favor and don't make comments like this that are based on wild assumptions.
Ideas are allways good, but please please please think them out. If your not sure, ASK. You just make yourself look worse when you do stuff like this.
The primary problems with doing this in game is 1 ) making the data be compressed, and 2) geting a good way to record sound data on any platform.
Right now 3rd party apps are probably best because they can be optimised for each client's OS.
JeffMdude I changed my name, get over it. This isn't some grade school playground.
What I'M saying is that it would be optional, meaning tha YOU don't have to listen to the chat or use it. So it would be the same as what you play now. So how would that make anyone less able to play? WHy would you have to quit playing when it would be just like now?
Is that ok with YOU!?!?!?!?!
I know your not a big fan of logic and sufff, so if this concept offends you, I'm sorry.
What I'M saying is that it would be optional, meaning tha YOU don't have to listen to the chat or use it. So it would be the same as what you play now. So how would that make anyone less able to play? WHy would you have to quit playing when it would be just like now?
Is that ok with YOU!?!?!?!?!
I know your not a big fan of logic and sufff, so if this concept offends you, I'm sorry.
JeffM-
thefreakyblueman
- Private First Class
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:58 am
- Location: Historic Over There
- Contact:
thefreakyblueman
For mac is available Skype.
http://skype.com
Teamspeak devs are porting it for Mac OSX, u wil need to wait a bit for the realease, it will be the TS 3.
RuFiToS
For mac is available Skype.
http://skype.com
Teamspeak devs are porting it for Mac OSX, u wil need to wait a bit for the realease, it will be the TS 3.
RuFiToS
I suspect, if I read and understod correctly, that Scorch is prohibited from using voice systems and email on the Internet as a parental safety precaution. To be the only player on the team without the capability would certainly impact the game play for him, because he is an active and communicative player. Also, since voice-to-text logs don't exist, this would make bz admin'ing a bit tougher, you can't know when people are abusive, trolling, etc..JeffM2501 wrote:What I'M saying is that it would be optional, meaning tha YOU don't have to listen to the chat or use it. So it would be the same as what you play now. So how would that make anyone less able to play? WHy would you have to quit playing when it would be just like now?
Is that ok with YOU!?!?!?!?!
I know your not a big fan of logic and sufff, so if this concept offends you, I'm sorry.
This all seems like pure logic to me, JM. I think that's "what the hell he was talking about." Seems obvious.
And on a followup note, I rather agree with him. Beign without would mean missing a lot of the fun. And I do know of people who regulate Internet access for their kids for safety (and security) reasons.
And I agree with you. It will certainly cause bandwidth issues for players already experiencing problems, and cause slow computers to be slower.
-toaster
"So there I was, all alone, facing all of the enemy. I started driving in circles, until I had them surrounded, and then I escaped in the confusion."
"So there I was, all alone, facing all of the enemy. I started driving in circles, until I had them surrounded, and then I escaped in the confusion."
It will certainly cause bandwidth issues for players already experiencing problems, and cause slow computers to be slower.
Only if those users with slow connections/PC's are dumb enough to use it. That's kind of like connecting to a huge map with dialup, 2meg card, and setting your client to the highest resolution and "experimental" video setting while run virus file scanners and file system checks in the background. Why would you?!? It works fine if you don't OPT to use it.
What one player is allowed to do on his/her parents PC is a personal problem and has relatively little impact on community "direction" regarding the feature roadmap. Today, I can use a third party to voice chat with anyone else that wants to and it DOES NOT hurt players who don't partake. I think it's generally silly to say so to.
Regarding administrative oversight... Sure it makes it harder for people to police a server, but it may not be necessary. I wouldn't let my child (chances are I agree w/Scorch's parents) hear voice chat in any game. No need for it, and certainly no need for the explicatives that people tend to let loose when they get frustrated. If folks don't like it, they can turn it off. That being said, if it was my server, I would do what I could to discourage verbal abuse, but I wouldn't avoid voice chat altogether because I was afraid it couldn't be policed (people will police each other when they have the option to simply turn it off)
You running for office or something?toaster wrote:... I rather agree with him...I agree with you
thank you toaster, that is exactly what i meant.toaster wrote:I suspect, if I read and understod correctly, that Scorch is prohibited from using voice systems and email on the Internet as a parental safety precaution. To be the only player on the team without the capability would certainly impact the game play for him, because he is an active and communicative player. Also, since voice-to-text logs don't exist, this would make bz admin'ing a bit tougher, you can't know when people are abusive, trolling, etc..JeffM2501 wrote:What I'M saying is that it would be optional, meaning tha YOU don't have to listen to the chat or use it. So it would be the same as what you play now. So how would that make anyone less able to play? WHy would you have to quit playing when it would be just like now?
Is that ok with YOU!?!?!?!?!
I know your not a big fan of logic and sufff, so if this concept offends you, I'm sorry.
This all seems like pure logic to me, JM. I think that's "what the hell he was talking about." Seems obvious.
And on a followup note, I rather agree with him. Beign without would mean missing a lot of the fun. And I do know of people who regulate Internet access for their kids for safety (and security) reasons.
And I agree with you. It will certainly cause bandwidth issues for players already experiencing problems, and cause slow computers to be slower.
-
Saturos
- Art Master General
- Posts: 1111
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:48 pm
- Location: Berlin/Germany
- Contact:
Dont use Skype! It lets explode your lag because its client-to-client-based and has no main-server. Afaik.
Teamspeak is far better (your lag stays on the normal level). It has a linux-version so maybe a Mac-port will follow soon.
Teamspeak is far better (your lag stays on the normal level). It has a linux-version so maybe a Mac-port will follow soon.
Saturos ([phagozytose] : www.phago.de)
I know people with very fast computers and connections that aren't smart enough about computers to use them well. You are stereotyping, and fast connection/fast computer != intelligence.SilverFox wrote:It will certainly cause bandwidth issues for players already experiencing problems, and cause slow computers to be slower.
Only if those users with slow connections/PC's are dumb enough to use it. That's kind of like connecting to a huge map with dialup, 2meg card, and setting your client to the highest resolution and "experimental" video setting while run virus file scanners and file system checks in the background. Why would you?!? It works fine if you don't OPT to use it.
Heck, I know a guy with superfast stuff because his kid told him that's what he needs, and all he does is check lottery numbers and weather on it once a day. When his kid, a 24-yr-old know-it-all, visits on rare occasion he plays video games. Meanwhile, the 55 year old father is paying a premium for unutilized bandwidth. And he did it because he didn't know better and he trusted the kid. Stupid, selfish kid.
And gameplay is intrinsically different from map viewing, with a very real difference based on system performance. Although if you want to argue that, I submit that perhaps you're just too far out there for me to keep up with you. But if you do agree on that point, then your metaphorical argument is fallacious.
If the entire rest of your team is on a voice chat and you're on text only, you're left out, you're missing out. I've operated in voice/radio environments (real, not computerized). If it's a busy environment, you're talking fast. Who on the team is going to remember to type-chat with the one or two players whose radios don't work? Hint: it isn't going to happen. If you think that's silly, that he's worried about being left out, I'm sorry for you.What one player is allowed to do on his/her parents PC is a personal problem and has relatively little impact on community "direction" regarding the feature roadmap. Today, I can use a third party to voice chat with anyone else that wants to and it DOES NOT hurt players who don't partake. I think it's generally silly to say so to.
Yes, well, it's still my opinion that it could make it harder, which is pretty much all I said in the first place. I don't hear you disagreeing. You fail to clarify why a lesse faire attitude would solve the problem. Once you have voice chat established, players will feel a need to use it to play well because of its human interface advantages versus keyboarding. Turning it off completely to avoid a couple of bad apples just makes the game less fun for the good apples.Regarding administrative oversight... Sure it makes it harder for people to police a server, but it may not be necessary. I wouldn't let my child (chances are I agree w/Scorch's parents) hear voice chat in any game. No need for it, and certainly no need for the explicatives that people tend to let loose when they get frustrated. If folks don't like it, they can turn it off. That being said, if it was my server, I would do what I could to discourage verbal abuse, but I wouldn't avoid voice chat altogether because I was afraid it couldn't be policed (people will police each other when they have the option to simply turn it off)
Note that in bzflag, you can silence an individual player; you are not limited to turning off the entire game chat. That's not the solution you propose. I think that one thing that's missing in the bzflag style chat silencing is the ability to prevent your messages from reaching one individual, too. Silence should work both ways. Then, the troll is ostracised from the team, can't read/hear what's being said, either. That would be more effective. Under the current model, a lot of players silence the trolls, but still complain about the trolls' comments, tk's cheats, etc. on team or public channels, which continues to feed the troll's ego.
Don't feel the need.You running for office or something?toaster wrote:... I rather agree with him...I agree with you
Obviously, you were unable to pick up on the (rather obvious) fact that I disagreed with JeffM on most of what he verbalized and only agreed on a single point.
Sorry that you can't understand the simplicity of agreeing with some points one person makes, and different points made by another person. That's an important component in rhetoric and logic.
Also sorry that you can't empathize or even understand Scorch's fears. That's an important part of understanding people and key to providing community leadership.
Oh, and Scorch: Thank you, too. I had hoped I understood correctly.
To continue with this discussion...
I have looked at the three suggestions for this functionality (i.e. Roger Wilco, Teamspeak, and Ventrilo) and have to say after thinking about it, it would be better if this functionality was a part of BZFlag and not provided by one of these separate programs.
The reason: BZFlag has as part of the game the definition of a team. The definition is controlled by the game and the team makeup is very dynamic, this is, people join and drop off from a team frequently.
To use one of these third party programs for the team radio, while feasible, would take a long time relatively speaking to add members or drop members, or adequately control access. Consider a team player who logged on as a red member, gained access to the radio channel, and then switched to the green team. For at least a few moments, he would have a link to the red team's communications.
While it is feasible to provide this functionality with the third party programs, it would be much better as an option within BZFlag, since controlling access to the communications would be automatic and immediate. And, as long as it was an option, the load on the server would be controlled by the admin of the server.
So reluctantly I must return to my request that this feature be developed for BZFlag.
The reason: BZFlag has as part of the game the definition of a team. The definition is controlled by the game and the team makeup is very dynamic, this is, people join and drop off from a team frequently.
To use one of these third party programs for the team radio, while feasible, would take a long time relatively speaking to add members or drop members, or adequately control access. Consider a team player who logged on as a red member, gained access to the radio channel, and then switched to the green team. For at least a few moments, he would have a link to the red team's communications.
While it is feasible to provide this functionality with the third party programs, it would be much better as an option within BZFlag, since controlling access to the communications would be automatic and immediate. And, as long as it was an option, the load on the server would be controlled by the admin of the server.
So reluctantly I must return to my request that this feature be developed for BZFlag.